I was asked last year by a museum to display an art video game (Moondust)
that I had written in 1982. It ran on a computer known as the Commodore 64
that had already sold in the millions by the time of the games release. It
turns out that after my game cartridge was introduced, there was a slight
hardware change to the computer (in 1983), which caused the sound to not
work. So I had to find a 1982 Commodore 64. But then it turned out that
all the joysticks I could find only worked on the later version. Once I
finally had a matching trio of computer, joystick, and cartridge, it turned
out that I didn't have a working video interface box. All the examples of
such boxes I could find were only compatible with yet a third revision of
the Commodore 64. All this trouble with a machine who's operating system
was fixed in ROM and had been available at the time in the millions!
We might imagine that we have become less vulnerable to this process of
digital environment loss, but we shouldn't be so confident. Even if there
are millions of examples of a content delivery machine, it will eventually
become difficult, and then ultimately impossible to reconstruct the moment
when an interactive work matched up with its hardware and software
environment.
There are some (Drexler) who believe that fast computers and intelligent
algorithms will eventually be able to untangle such problems, but I am
skeptical. The massiveness of the digital archival puzzle will increase at
an ever greater rate- and there are theoretical restrictions on how much
better untangling algorithms can become.
As I've said in other communications, I believe the only way to maintain
the viability of digital works over time is to have them in perpetual
artificial use. That is the only way to counter environmental drift.
Best,
Jaron
At 8:17 PM -0700 8/31/97, Stewart Brand wrote:
>The following from Brian spells out in poignant detail how immediate as
>well as temporal is the need for systemic translation. --SB
>
>>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 18:12:17 +0100
>>To: Stewart Brand <>
>>From: (Brian Eno)
>>Subject: Re: HBL
>>
>>>I wish I could see the series in PAL. My copies in NTSC are pretty funky.
>>
>>I can assure you that the PAL looks great. There's always a big loss making
>>those conversions though. I recall a day of total horror when I mounted mny
>>first video show in Europe ( - I'd made all the tapes and the early shows
>>in North America). Eeverything was set up, and finally the tapes arrived
>>back from the lab, now PAL. The whole thing looked absolutely terminally
>>dreadful - diluted, bluish and dead. I Went nuts and nearly pulled the
>>whole show, but actually saved the day by managing to find and hire a whole
>>set of NTSC players and monitors. That was the profit from that show, plus
>>some, gone.
>>
>>Subsequently I always tried to make tapes in the format in which they were
>>due to be shown, or, if that wasn't possible, to treat the tapes on
>>transfer - raise the colour levels etc - to try to make them as strong as
>>the original.
>>
>>But the fact that this very simple (you'd think) problem has never been
>>satisfacorily solved gives me very serious doubts about this Utopian vision
>>of a future where all technologies will be transparent and translateable.
>>My experience as an artist who works with a lot of those technologies is
>>that nothing ever translates unchanged into anything else.
>>
>>A couple of months ago I totted up how many different storage formats I
>>have in my studio (a 'format' being defined as something that requires a
>>unique playback system - ie cannot be played on another machine).
>>
>>The staggering answer: 28. These are:
>>
>>for video:
>>
>>VHS PAL
>> NTSC
>>Beta PAL
>> NTSC
>>U-matic PAL
>> NTSC
>>1" PAL
>> NTSC
>>8mm PAL
>>Hi 8 PAL
>>DV PAL
>>CDROM
>>
>>for sound:
>>
>>1/4 inch stereo
>>1/4inch 4track
>>1/2inch stereo
>>1inch 8 track
>>1inch 16track
>>2 inch 16 track
>>2 inch 24 track
>>1 inch digital 24 track
>>1 inch digital 32 track
>>cassette
>>CD
>>Minidisc
>>DAT
>>F1 digital
>>Microcassette
>>NT digital
>>
>>This audio list doesn't include anything about Noise reduction, which is a
>>whole other can of worms.For instance I have 2inch 24 track tapes that have
>>Dolby A noise reduction, others with Dolby SR, then there's DBX....So that
>>list needs a few added to it. Also, I haven't included any computer storage
>>formats in the list. But the fact is that if I ever want to play any of
>>this stuff, I have to get the right machine to do it on. One might be
>>tempted to say - why not just transfer it all to a single digital format?
>>The reasons are: it would take forever, and, it wouldn't be the same
>>anyway.
>>
>>The temptation, of course, is to say - OK - that format's finished - let's
>>just chuck all those tapes away and stop bothering ourselves about it.
>>
>>By the way, I'm having another incomprehensible TCP problem, so this might
>>not go off for days.
>>
>>You Americans - you just don't realize what a difference it makes NOT to
>>live within spitting distance of Silicon Valley. I wish every internet
>>Utopian could just spend four weeks trying to do it in some other part of
>>the world...
>>